Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:24:56 -0600 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/textproc/libwpd Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <op.s2yyru2i9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> In-Reply-To: <1136553651.70797.19.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200601052201.k05M1Hiv047660@repoman.freebsd.org> <200601052003.37898@aldan> <1136537653.70797.5.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <200601060810.40777@aldan> <1136553651.70797.19.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 07:20:51 -0600, Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Mikhail Teterin píše v pá 06. 01. 2006 v 08:10 -0500: >> On Friday 06 January 2006 03:54 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> = This looks like a larger design problem and I don't know from where to >> = start attacking it. >> >> With other things a port's maintainer gets to craft his own LIB_DEPENDS >> as he wants to... USE_GNOME takes away that flexibility. > > You must realize that USE_GNOME came into existence before the > LIB_DEPENDS without shlib version were even possible in the framework. > It was created for the single purpose of not having to touch 1000+ ports > each time the library number changes. > > Now when you can solve this problem by not requiring shlib number, or by > specifying minimal package version, you don't have to use USE_GNOME. > The majority of USE_GNOME component just translates into the > dependencies, really. Only few have a non-trivial functionality (*hack > ones). > >> It is not directly relevant either. If the goal is to minimize the >> amount of support requests, you may as well require the OS-reinstall >> before each gnome upgrade... > > Actually, that would be much easier for majority of people than > attempting portupgrading it. > >> = > Considering, that most software that has such version demands makes >> = > its own checks in the configure, there is no added safety at all... >> >> = Oh no, we can't just let rely on configure checks. First, we never >> = want `make` to fail. Than we could go Slackware and forget the >> = dependencies in ports anyway. >> >> `make' fails NOW -- in a much messier way. one starts building libwpd, >> it starts building a new libgsf, that starts building a new gconf. gconf >> tries to install, finds an existing gconf and refuses to install... >> Oops. make failed and an e-mail was dispatched to gnome@ > > That's some valid point, yes. > >> Simply remove most (all?) of the major library requirements from the >> bsd.gnome.mk. > > Now I'm a bit hesitant to do this. But I feel that replacing them with > minimal version numbers would be a good thing too. > > I don't know what's the opinion of members of the FreeBSD GNOME Team, so > I can't speak for them. That's fine with me when pkg_add is broke^H^H^H^H^featureless (doesn't check library version before install). The gsf:1.6 stuff sound like a good idea, btw. Cheers, Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.s2yyru2i9aq2h7>